What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[harvey1]

Theism is a philosophy. It is not a scientific belief. There is no evidence that the universe started out as a "God-created" universe, but theists believe this to be so. This is blind acceptance.

I disagree. It is not blind acceptance if you have good reason. I have good reason to think that a simple universe is easier to be the first state of the universe versus the far more complex one that atheists are advocating. Atheism depends on complexity at the beginning state of the universe, theism depends on casuality functioning at the beginning state (which is also an implicit assumption by atheists too). Hence, theism is far more reasonable, and thus not blind acceptance like atheism is.

[harvey1]

Can you tell me a bit more about this Omega attractor? Are you thinking of the God that emerges from the evolution of intelligence as proposed by Frank J.Tipler? (I can't find out how this theory has a bearing on the beginning state though)

I base my view of an Omega attractor on an symmetry transformation. Beginning is the same as the end after a transformation is complete. That doesn't mean it is identical to the beginning state, it just means that certain properties remain the same. How and what the Omega attractor is, I have no idea. I strongly doubt Tipler's theory though. The infinite expansion of the universe might have something to do with it though. For example, if the entire universe is in a quantum mechanical state, the history of the universe might undergo some kind of transformation due to the quantum measurement problem. I can only speculate...

[bernee51]

I disagree. It is not blind acceptance if you have good reason. I have good reason to think that a simple universe is easier to be the first state of the universe versus the far more complex one that atheists are advocating. Atheism depends on complexity at the beginning state of the universe, theism depends on casuality functioning at the beginning state (which is also an implicit assumption by atheists too). Hence, theism is far more reasonable, and thus not blind acceptance like atheism is.

Atheism speaks of the belief or not of the existence of god(s).

What cosmology a particular atheist chooses to follow is irrelevent to his/her atheism. You cannot imagine a universe without a creator - therefore you are a theist. There may be 'good reason' in you mind...but that does not equal evidence. You base you beliefs on the acceptance of the unproven (and the unprovable). Sounds like blind acceptance to me.

[harvey1]

Atheism speaks of the belief or not of the existence of god(s).

Could you re-phrase that?

What cosmology a particular atheist chooses to follow is irrelevent to his/her atheism.

Cosmology is irrelevant to the philosophy of atheism, but all of atheism has one thing in common, namely the belief that the universe was restricted in it's beginning. The restriction is that there is no mind that chooses a preferred universe, rather, the "preferred universe" is a result of a random brute fact. This is an ontological position and one that an atheist must defend if faced with philosophical paradoxes that result from that position.

You cannot imagine a universe without a creator - therefore you are a theist. There may be 'good reason' in you mind...but that does not equal evidence. You base you beliefs on the acceptance of the unproven (and the unprovable). Sounds like blind acceptance to me.

Good reasons is the use of evidence to construe a logical interpretation of that evidence. If you would like to show how I have misconstrued what we know, then please feel free to present your counterargument.

[spetey]

Wow!

That is a lot of activity on this thread. It's exciting, but I feel bad for Harvey--that's a lot of points to answer from a lot of angles. Also, I'm bummed for myself, since I can't afford to keep up with this interesting thread so well. Maybe there can be some useful offshoots into other threads? Here are some possible suggestions of unresolved issues that still interest me:

• Does the universe itself have intent? And would this mean the universe is a god?
• Does a being require intelligence in order to be a god?
• Is God strictly identical to truth?
• Is God strictly identical to the laws of physics?
• Does positing God for mysterious phenomena count as a good explanation?

Maybe some of the phrasing is a bit biased here, I'm open to alternatives.

And of course I remain very interested in the issue over at my favored thread on whether life without a god is thereby meaningless.

Harvey, you must feel a bit frustrated by so many people coming at you--if so, what might make you feel more comfortable? (Other than outright conversion by those opposed to your views?!)


spetey

[Curious]

Ok Harvey1 let me come at this from a different angle. The main premise of your argument appears to assume that the "beginning" state of this universe is identical with the beginning state of universe as a whole. What I am getting at here is that while this universe could be backtracked to an apparently beginning state, this is not necessarily identical with a universal beginning. If we are to accept that time is dependent upon change and motion it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that before the motion of the universe as we know it started, time could conceivably exist simultaneously. This view is supported by both scientific theory and biblical reference. Within this "amalgam" could exist innumerable possibilities of reality. The total energy of the system could remain constant by the simultaneous realisation of opposing realities( this is not to say there is no driving force behind it all ). If this was the case, then there is no need for the assumption that the beginning showed favour to either state or that infact there was ever a beginning as such, only the perception of a beginning to our particular version of reality.

[harvey1]

Ok Harvey1 let me come at this from a different angle. The main premise of your argument appears to assume that the "beginning" state of this universe is identical with the beginning state of universe as a whole. What I am getting at here is that while this universe could be backtracked to an apparently beginning state, this is not necessarily identical with a universal beginning.

I agree with you.

If we are to accept that time is dependent upon change and motion it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that before the motion of the universe as we know it started, time could conceivably exist simultaneously. This view is supported by both scientific theory and biblical reference. Within this "amalgam" could exist innumerable possibilities of reality.

Sure. Why not.

The total energy of the system could remain constant by the simultaneous realisation of opposing realities( this is not to say there is no driving force behind it all ). If this was the case, then there is no need for the assumption that the beginning showed favour to either state or that infact there was ever a beginning as such, only the perception of the beginning of our particular version of reality.

Okay, I'm really excited that you have imagined a possibility that makes sense and explains why it is that we see the universe that we happen to see when we walk out our front door. Now, what I want to know is how can you eliminate the possibility that prior to our universe there was nothing and after that there was still nothing and nothing forever and ever? And, while you are at it, how can you eliminate another possibility where the universe was just a one-dimensional world with 1-D stuff that exists forever and ever. Next, consider a 2D world with stuff forever and ever, then 3D, 4D, 5D,...100D,...1000D,...100000D, etc., all lasting forever and ever. Of course those universes don't give birth to our universe, but that's beside the point, they are just as likely as the universe you imagined. In fact, I would say that nothing at all is more likely than the universe you imagined since nothing has to be the case.

You have to explain to me why it is that we happen to live in a universe that was soooo sophisticated that it is doing what no complex algorithm has been able to do, and that is self-extract to the point of developing such complex features as what we see in our universe. It seems very strange that we live in a world of such sophisticated structure when a universe with nothing at all (with nothing happening forever and ever) seems a lot more likely. It would seem very compelling to me that we are extremely lucky given these other simpler possibilities. What I want to know is why should we be so lucky? In fact, I think it's reasonable to say that there are infinite of other possibilities that the universe could have been besides the one that we find ourselves, so that makes our universe an infinitesimal possibility (or, practically speaking, zero probability). So, why was a zero probable universe the one that actually happened to be the case?

[harvey1]

Harvey, you must feel a bit frustrated by so many people coming at you--if so, what might make you feel more comfortable? (Other than outright conversion by those opposed to your views?!)

Oh I don't expect anyone to convert. Most people don't change their minds in any appreciable way, at least from my experience. I just like learning from others and seeing the different angles that people confront questions like these. For that reason I tend not to get frustrated. The only thing that frustrates me is what frustrates most people (e.g., impoliteness, stonewalling, etc.). However, it is my intention to eventually drop out of these forums as you are also slowly doing. Life's just too busy to spend in such unprofitable uses.

[Corvus]

Firstly; I don't see how it's wrong based merely on a probability factor for a result that you feel is remarkable in some way.

I need to know your reasons why you think the "beginning" of the universe could not have been a non-explosive class. If you agree it could have conceivably been a non-explosive class, then you have either random luck or some mechanism that made the universe favor an explosive class versus a non-explosive class.

I didn't make any assertions about what form the beginning of the universe took. In fact, I try to avoid these sorts of questions because I think it involves far too much speculation to be realistic even in a discussion limited to speculating on the unknown. To do so would be attempting to establish probabilities for a possibility that will be used in turn for calculating the probability of another possibility (the existence of gods). QED claims in his profile to be a quantum mechanic, so I'll defer that responsibility to him.

Secondly; why are you so certain atheism depends on the mechanisms for the universe's existence being entirely random? As far as I know, atheism, though frequently taken up by skeptics, does not rule out explicitly in its definition spirituality, mysticism and the supernatural. Couldn't atheists believe in a creator-being that isn't a god?

I don't think so. Atheism is a philosophy that says that there is no God or gods in the universe, outside the universe, or pantheistically equivalent to the universe that isn't also reference to the universe...

...In terms of spirituality, mysticism and the supernatural, these concepts would fit your traditional theist, polytheists, animists, polydemonism, pantheist, etc. beliefs. They would not fit atheism since "gods" are equivalent terms to entities such as spirits, angels, demons, goblins, etc.:

Then you would be the first Christian to claim that Christianity is a polytheistic religion! But again, I don't see how you've shown believing in the supernatural is equivalent to believing in gods. And as for supernatural creatures or even considering a creator-who-is-not-a-god; perhaps you could show me what you consider to be the minimum definition of a god, to see if they correlate?

You seem to be saying that an atheist must be a materialist. Why?

More importantly, can you imagine how a universe might not have a deity but could still exist for a reason not dependent to its creation by deities? Earlier you questioned my attacking the particulars of theism before addressing the minimum. I redirected the charge back at you, but I think the answer got lost in the mail somewhere.

The problem that you have with that notion is that anything that is dependent on an external reality (e.g., external laws, thoughts, dreams, spells, truths, etc.) are attributes of language and or thought. Language and or thought requires a God or gods.

Another huh? I must have missed the post where you proved language or thought requires a God or gods.

Thirdly - I've also mentioned this before - wouldn't this also rule out every god that isn't a creator if only gods that can be creators can account for the existence of the universe?

Well, atheism isn't just a rejection of God, it is a rejection of all gods or names that substitute for them.

I know; I am simply stating that your reasoning only applies for gods that are creators. We can relegate gods that aren't creators to the dustbin too, next to atheism.

Also, you seem to be saying is that two contradictory beliefs can't both be reasonable to the point of being true. I say of course they can. If I have a coin, and I say that it's reasonable to the point of being true that if I fling it into the air it will land on heads, and you say that it will be reasonable to the point of being true that it will land on tails, then we've done exactly that. Both beliefs are reasonable to the point of being true, both can't be true at the same time, and it's entirely reasonable to hold either view.

I disagree. If you don't have reason to favor one belief over another, then it is not reasonable to believe one and not believe the other.

I disagree, and I will give a real world example to show why. At the moment the coin is on the ground and you have yet to glance down to see how it has landed. Maintain that glance heavenward and ponder on the outcome of the toss. We can both agree it is not reasonable to believe the coin landed on both heads or tails, or neither heads nor tails, since they are two opposing positions. It's entirely acceptable to say "I don't know how the coin landed" or "I refrain judgement on the resting state of the coin", but I don't see how this is more reasonable than taking a punt at it and guessing how the coin landed.

If we have repeated the coin toss 50 times prior to the current situation and results were 30 heads, 20 tails, then its very likely the outcome of our most recent coin toss will be tails. But is it still reasonable to expect that the coin will come up heads for the 41st time? Yes, I believe so. That thing that we call reason is what we are using to determine the likelihood of something, or a probability if you will allow me to call it that, and what my little example with the coin shows is that the probability alone is not enough to determine whether a belief is false or whether it is true. Then we have to also take into consideration that our understanding of what is probable or what is improbable to some extent rests on the diverse experiences of we the gamblers, possibly to the effect that we can arrive at different conclusions.

I don't believe we can know whether god exists, but I don't believe in god. Categorise me.

Do you hold beliefs that you don't think are reasonable (i.e., do not have enough evidence to your satisfaction that requires you to hold the belief)?

I believe so.

[Curious]

Now, what I want to know is how can you eliminate the possibility that prior to our universe there was nothing and after that there was still nothing and nothing forever and ever? And, while you are at it, how can you eliminate another possibility where the universe was just a one-dimensional world with 1-D stuff that exists forever and ever. Next, consider a 2D world with stuff forever and ever, then 3D, 4D, 5D,...100D,...1000D,...100000D, etc., all lasting forever and ever. Of course those universes don't give birth to our universe, but that's beside the point, they are just as likely as the universe you imagined. In fact, I would say that nothing at all is more likely than the universe you imagined since nothing has to be the case.

You have to explain to me why it is that we happen to live in a universe that was soooo sophisticated that it is doing what no complex algorithm has been able to do, and that is self-extract to the point of developing such complex features as what we see in our universe. It seems very strange that we live in a world of such sophisticated structure when a universe with nothing at all (with nothing happening forever and ever) seems a lot more likely. It would seem very compelling to me that we are extremely lucky given these other simpler possibilities. What I want to know is why should we be so lucky? In fact, I think it's reasonable to say that there are infinite of other possibilities that the universe could have been besides the one that we find ourselves, so that makes our universe an infinitesimal possibility (or, practically speaking, zero probability). So, why was a zero probable universe the one that actually happened to be the case?

That is the thing. What I am saying is that this universe need not be the only universe. In fact the whole theory insists that other realities must exist to allow for the existence of this universe. These could include your singular,multi and null dimensional realities.The infinite possibilites would make it a certainty that a universe with the complexity of ours would at some point exist as well as simpler or more complex ones. It would also be inevitable that at some point, someone would ask this very question and get this reply.